Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | 2026-06-29 | described here | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On May 26, 2026, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by Eric Norrell naming AeroVironment; Wahid Nawabi, our President and CEO; Kevin McDonnell, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Mary Clum, President of our Space, Cyber & Directed Energy segment, as defendants. See Norell v. AeroVironment, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01429 (E.D. Va.). The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements regarding our work for the U.S. Space Force’s Satellite Communication Augmentation Resource (“SCAR”) program. The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock during the period June 25, 2025 through March 10, 2026. The complaint seeks a jury trial and unspecified compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Ang… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this assessment, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of April 30, 2026, due to the material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting described below. | ||||||
| 2025-04-30 | 2025-06-25 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees in unspecified amounts. We filed our answer on December 16, 2021. The parties participated in a mediation session on May 8, 2025, but did not reach a resolution during the session. On March 29, 2024, a former employee filed a complaint against AeroVironment in the Ventura County Superior Court in California, alleging violations of the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses and other recordkeeping matters and seeking penalties recoverable under California Labor Code section 2698, et. seq., Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) and all other remedies available under PAGA. The complaint seeks civil penalties on behalf of the plaintiff and similarly situations persons pursuant to PAGA. We filed ou… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of April 30, 2025 based on the specified criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this report, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective and were operating at a reasonable level. | ||||||
| 2024-04-30 | 2024-06-27 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees in unspecified amounts. We filed our answer on December 16, 2021. Written and oral discovery are ongoing. On January 22, 2024, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in the Ventura County Superior Court in California alleging that AeroVironment did not indemnify and reimburse employees for certain tools and equipment purchased by such employees needed to discharge their job duties. In April 2024, in order to avoid the future cost, expense, and distraction of litigation, we executed a settlement agreement, under which we did not admit to any fault or wrongdoing, with the former employee to settle the employee’s individual claims against the Company for an immaterial, confidential amount. The lawsuit was dismissed in April 20… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of April 30, 2024 based on the specified criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this report, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective and were operating at a reasonable level. | ||||||
| 2023-04-30 | 2023-06-28 | described here | effective | effective | remediated (prior year) | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees in unspecified amounts. We filed our answer on December 16, 2021. Discovery in this lawsuit has begun and is ongoing. We continue to mount a vigorous defense. We are subject to lawsuits, government investigations, audits and other legal proceedings from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. It is not possible to predict the outcome of any legal proceeding with any certainty. The outcome or costs we incur in connection with a legal proceeding could adversely impact our operating results and financial position. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of April 30, 2023 based on the specified criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this report, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective and were operating at a reasonable level. Item 9A · material weakness · Remediation of Previously Disclosed Material Weaknesses We previously identified and disclosed in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2022, as well as in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed for the quarters ended July 30, 2022, October 29, 2022 and January 28, 2023, the material weaknesses over identified deficiencies related to inadequate design and operation of certain controls at certain newly acquired businesses. | ||||||
| 2022-04-30 | 2022-06-29 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On February 22, 2019, Webasto Charging Systems, Inc. (“Webasto”) filed a lawsuit, which was subsequently amended on April 5, 2019, against us in Delaware Superior Court, arising from the sale of the EES Business to Webasto in June 2018. The lawsuit generally alleged several claims against us for breach of contract, indemnity, declaratory judgment, and fraud and misrepresentation, including allegations regarding inaccuracy of certain diligence disclosures, financial disclosures, failure to provide certain consents to contract assignments and related to the previously announced recall. In order to avoid the future cost, expense, and distraction of continued litigation, we executed a written settlement agreement with Webasto effective December 16, 2021, under which we did not admit to any fault or wrongdoing and fully settled all claims in the lawsuit. Further, the settlement eliminates future warranty and indemnity claims against the company by Webasto. The lawsuit was dismissed on December 28, 2021. On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of April 30, 2022, due to the material weaknesses as described below. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this report, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective due to the material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting described below. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.